Category talk:Technology
Category:Technology nomination ;Category:Technology: As above, to parallel a possible Portal:Technology. Besides, desperately needed to collect some existing categories such as various "starships" categories, "probes" (which shouldn't be a sub of starships), "transporter components" and so on. -- Cid Highwind 11:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) * Support. --Alan del Beccio 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Starship components nomination :moved again from Category talk:Starship components. * Category:Starship components, to cover obvious components, such as nacelles, saucer section and so on, but to also include the smaller bits 'n pieces like warp drive, Jefferies tubes and the like. --Alan del Beccio 21:01, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. Ditto. --From Andoria with Love 04:59, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Moved from User talk:Gvsualan. Can stations such as helm and tactical be considered starship components, or do those need their own cats? --From Andoria with Love 11:10, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Alan seems to have left, which is probably the healthiest thing to do. Anyway, I'd say the helm and tactical stations (and other modular stations) would be starship components as long as they are identifiable stations and not positions. But that's just my opinion.--Tim Thomason 11:32, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) * I would think that 'stations' are more of a 'section' of the bridge than a component, unless it is specifically in reference to the 'helm consol', which would be a component. --Alan del Beccio 20:16, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) :* I don't know, that's why I asked you, lol! Perhaps a subcategory for this? (I dunno, I'm too out of it to think right now.) --From Andoria with Love 20:41, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::* Yeah, I believe Cid brought something up (see below) on the talk page for the category. But something along the lines of separating the components that are directly involved in construction of the ship from those that are used in operating the ship..helm, captain's chair, etc...--Alan del Beccio 20:47, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) Discussion I think the contents of this need to be discussed further. Primary and secondary hulls, nacelles, shields etc. is fine, but... *Rematerialization subroutine *Omnidirectional holographic diode *Transporter scrambler *Command chair *Surgical support frame *Viewscreen just to name a random few? I don't think those really qualify as "starship components". Some of them are components that just happen to be on starships most of the time we see them (Viewscreen), some of them are parts (of parts of...) of things that are also starship components (Omnidirectional holographic diode), some of them are not even components, but programs (subroutine). I think anything that can be considered equipment, furniture or decoration should not be a part of this list. Also, subcomponents should not appear here. -- Cid Highwind 14:34, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Agreed. I am (or have) removed several of the "parts (of parts of...)" items that are categorized here. --Alan del Beccio 20:04, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC) ** Okay, this was clearly a bad idea, and I've fallen back on the idea and regrouped them here, and subcategories. Further discussion can be found at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions#Technologies. --Alan del Beccio 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Sub-cat suggestions Technologies With Category:Technology as the supercategory I propose the following, which may or may not make some other categories obsolete. * Category:Communications technology to include everything from viewscreen to telephone to communicator to earpiece and so forth. * Category:Holographic technology w/ sub Category:Holographic programs w/ sub Category:Holograms, this would then be home to articles such as holodeck. * Category:Computer technology to remove computer technology from "Category:Computer terminology", or perhaps to make it totally obsolete. * Category:Transporter technology making obsolete "Category:Transporter components" * Category:Propulsion technology making, in part, "Category:Starship components" obsolete. * Anything else that helps eliminate the "components" categories. --Alan del Beccio 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Support for all the above. I also support total replacement of "Category:Computer terminology" with Category:Computer technology, rather than a partial replacement. Would Category:Starship technology work as a replacement for "Category:Starship components", perhaps with Category:Propulsion technology as a subcategory? -- Renegade54 19:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :: See, Starship components never turned out the way I intended it. People get so category happy sometimes they just throw things where ever (I'm guilty of this as times, but I do it for tracking purposes until I can get back to it later-- like now). Starship components, I believe, was envisioned to cover the *big* parts of the ship, not the "toys" -- but contain elements like hulls, nacelles, bulkheads, etc-- or at least, things that can be broken down into parts. Anyway, I would almost rather start that portion over from scratch, which is why I thought about only dissecting out the real obvious stuff (Propulsion technology, Transporter technology) and work from there with what's left. --Alan del Beccio 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :::Sounds like a good plan to me. :) -- Renegade54 20:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I support this and have created the remaining category, holographic technology.